[Citation : 2011(2) RLW 1507 (SC)]
(Supreme Court)
Sri Radhy Shyam (D) Thro. L.Rs. Vs. State of U.P. (Singhvi, J.)
HON'BLE G.S. SINGHVI, J.
HON'BLE ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, J.
Sri Radhy Shyam (Dead) Through L.Rs. & Ors.
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors.
Civil Appeal No.3261 of 2011, decided on 15.04.2011
Appeal allowed.
Hkwfe vtZu vf/kfu;e] 1894] /kkjk 5-A lifBr /kkjk 17¼1½ ,oa 17¼4½ & vkS|ksfxd fodkl ds iz;kstukFkZ Hkwfe dk vtZu & igys ls gh jgoklh; edku fufeZr fd;s tk pqds Fks & /kkjk 5-d ds rgr vH;kifr;ka mBkus ds muds egRoiw.kZ vf/kdkj ls oafpr djus vkSj vR;ko';drk [k.M dk voyEcu ysus dk dksbZ fof/kekU; vk/kkj ugha & vfHkfu/kkZfjr & ,slh dksbZ okLrfod ,oa lkjHkwr vR;ko'drk ugha tks /kkjk 17¼1½ ds rgr vR;ko';drk izko/kku dk voyEcu ysus dks U;k;ksfpr Bgjk lds & /kkjk 5-d ds vkosnu dks i`Fkd djus dk dksbZ dkj.k ugha Fkk ftlesa nwljs i{k dks Hkh lquks dk fu;e vUrfoZ"V gS & mu ij vokafNr eqdnekckth Fkksius ds fy, izR;FkhZ ij #- 5]00]000@- dh dher vf/kjksfir dh tks vihykFkhZ dks ns; gksxhA ¼in la[;k 59 ,oa 62½ vihy Lohdkj dhA
Hon'ble SINGHVI, J.—Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against order dated 15.12.2008 passed by the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court whereby the writ petition filed by the appellants questioning the acquisition of their land for planned industrial development of District Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater NOIDA Industrial Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the, “Development Authority”) by invoking Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 (for short, “the Act”), as amended by Uttar Pradesh Act No.8 of 1974, was dismissed.
3. Upon receipt of proposal from the Development Authority for acquisition of 205.0288 hectares land of village Makora, Pargana Dankaur, Tehsil and District Gautam Budh Nagar, which was approved by the State Government, notification dated 12.3.2008 was issued under Section 4(1) read with Section 17(1) and 17(4) of the Act. The relevant portions of the notification are extracted below:
“Under Sub-Section (1) of Section 4 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 (Act no.1 of 1894), the Governor is pleased to notify for general information that the land mentioned in the scheduled below, is needed for public purpose, namely planned industrial development in District Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority.)
2. The Governor being of the opinion that the provisions of sub-section 1 of Section 17 of the said Act, are applicable to said land inasmuch as the said land is urgently required, for the planned industrial development in District Gautam Budh Nagar through Greater Noida Industrial Development Authority and it is as well necessary to eliminate the delay likely to be caused by an enquiry under Section 5A of the said Act, the Governor is further pleased to direct under sub-section 4 of Section 17 of the said Act that the provisions of Section 5A of the said Act, shall not apply.”
4. Since the appellants’ land was also included in the notification, they made a representation to the Chairman-cum-Chief Executive Officer of the Development Authority (Respondent No.4) with copies to the Chief Minister, Principal Secretary, Housing and Urban Development, U.P., the District Magistrate and the Special Officer, Land Acquisition, Gautam Buddh Nagar with the request that their land comprised in Khasra No.394 may not be acquired because they had raised construction 30-35 years ago and were using the property for abadi/habitation. The concerned functionaries/ authorities did not pay heed to the request of the appellants and the State Government issued notification dated 19.11.2008 under Section 6 read with Section 9 of the Act.
5. The appellants challenged the acquisition of their land on several grounds including the following:
(i) That the land cannot be used for industrial purposes because in the draft Master Plan of Greater NOIDA (2021), the same is shown as part of residential zone.
(ii) That they had already constructed dwelling houses and as per the policy of the State Government, the residential structures are exempted from acquisition.
(iii) That the State Government arbitrarily invoked Section 17(1) read with Section 17(4) of the Act and deprived them of their valuable right to raise objections under Section 5-A.
(iv) The acquisition of land is vitiated by arbitrariness, mala fides and violation of Article 14 of the Constitution inasmuch as lands of the Member of Legislative Assembly and other influential persons were left out from acquisition despite the fact that they were not in abadi, but they were not given similar treatment despite the fact that their land was part of abadi and they had constructed dwelling units.
6. In support of their challenge to the invoking of Section 17(1) and (4), the appellants made detailed averments in paragraphs 11 and 16 and raised specific grounds A and F, which are extracted below:
“11. That as per the scheme of the said Act, each and every section from sections 4 to 17 has an independent role to play though the
Om Prakash vs. State of U.P. ((1998) 6 SCC 1) 8
Jasraj Singh vs. State of U.P. (2008(8) ADJ 329) 8
Jagriti Sahkari Avas Samiti Ltd. Ghaziabad vs. State of U.P. (2008(9) ADJ 43) 8
Anand Buttons Limited vs. State of Haryana ((2005) 9 SCC 164) 8
Narayan Govind Gavate vs. State of Maharashtra ((1977) 1 SCC 133) 12
Esso Fabs Private Limited vs. State of Haryana ((2009) 2 SCC 377) 12
State of U.P. vs. Pista Devi ((1986) 4 SCC 251) 13
Chameli Singh vs. State of U.P. ((1996) 2 SCC 549) 13
Anand Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2010) 11 SCC 242) 21
O’Reilly vs. Mackman (1983 2 AC 237) 26
Sayeedur Rehman vs. State of Bihar ((1973) 3 SCC 333) 28
Mohinder Singh Gill vs. Chief Election Commissioner ((1978) 1 SCC 405) 29
Maneka Gandhi vs. Union of India ((1978) 1 SCC 248) 30
Swadeshi Cotton Mills vs. Union of India ((1981) 1 SCC 664) 31
A.K. Kraipak vs. Union of India ((1969) 2 SCC 262) 31
State of Orissa v Dr. Bina Pani Dei (1967(2) SCR 625) 31
Munshi Singh vs. Union of India ((1973) 2 SCC 337) 32
State of Punjab vs. Gurdial Singh ((1980) 2 SCC 471) 33
Shyam Nandan Prasad vs. State of Bihar ((1993) 4 SCC 255) 34
Union of India vs. Mukesh Hans ((2004) 8 SCC 14) 35
Nandeshwar Prasad vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh ((1964) 3 SCR 425) 36
Raja Anand Brahma Shah vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ((1967) 1 SCR 373) 37
Rajasthan Housing Board vs. Shri Kishan ((1993) 2 SCC 84) 39
A.P. Sareen vs. State of U.P. ((1997) 9 SCC 359) 39
Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Jan Kalyan Samiti ((1996) 2 SCC 365) 39
Jai Narain vs. Union of India ((1996) 1 SCC 9) 39
Union of India vs. Krishan Lal Arneja ((2004) 8 SCC 453 = RLW 2004(3) SC 321) 41
Babu Ram vs. State of Haryana ((2009) 10 SCC 115) 43
First Land Acquisition Collector vs. Nirodhi Prakash Gangoli ((2002) 4 SCC 160) 49
Tika Ram vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2009) 10 SCC 689) 50
Nand Kishore Gupta vs. State of Uttar Pradesh ((2010) 10 SCC 282) 51
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.